New BBC documentary asks ‘Who Won the War in North?’

[tyssam5]

Looking like the Lannister's at the minute, but it's early days.

[Gaffer]

John Hume virtually ignored.

Taylor needs to be reminded about who was the main nationalist force behind the IRA ceasefire

[IolarCoisCuain]

Were Sinn Féin against the notion of having the Troubles recognised as a war and if so, what was it?

The reason I ask - I remember watching some TV discussion on the BBC years ago. Danny Morrison was there with some Loyalist ex-paramilitary. Morrison was cruising in the debate until the question of why "the Troubles" were called that, and not a war.

As I recall - and I'm open to correction on this - Morrison had been equating the Troubles to a war until the Loyalist said something to Morrison about Republicans above anyone not being in a position to recognise the conflict as a war and that Morrison knew well that this was so. Morrison made no reply, and I've always wondered about it since (a poor reflection on what I have to worry about, I know).

Anybody help me out?

[bennydorano]

See the bake on the Loyalist round the bonfire when Taylor said (paraphrasing) sure when a majority vote for a UI what's the problem? (After letting him talk shite for a while).

[Myles Na G.]

John Hume virtually ignored.

Taylor needs to be reminded about who was the main nationalist force behind the IRA ceasefire

Seamus Mallon was representing the SDLP - maybe he should've emphasised Hume's contribution a bit more. John, unfortunately, isn't able to speak up for himself these days.

[lynchbhoy]

John Hume virtually ignored.

Taylor needs to be reminded about who was the main nationalist force behind the IRA ceasefire

Seamus Mallon was representing the SDLP - maybe he should've emphasised Hume's contribution a bit more. John, unfortunately, isn't able to speak up for himself these days.

Hume and Mallon lead the nationalist charge long before sf came about

Two fantastic men and politicians

[Hereiam]

Why is the other side trying to make out that they are been treated like second class citizens. Has the community drugs fund run out. There is no doubt the DUP will be making more of an effort to get these poor people what they want so I can see a rough period coming up.

[barryqwalsh]

I did find this funny.

CF: Yeah, I've always felt my family is British; I'm British, even though I have never lived there.

See more at: http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-chris-froome-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-part-1-30391816.html#sthash.3AWqdHRh.dpuf

[foxcommander]

I did find this funny.

CF: Yeah, I've always felt my family is British; I'm British, even though I have never lived there.

There are plenty of irish who've never set foot on the island. Are they discounted?

[mikehunt]

I did find this funny.

CF: Yeah, I've always felt my family is British; I'm British, even though I have never lived there.

There are plenty of irish who've never set foot on the island. Are they discounted?

If they haven't bothered their arse paying a visit then yes, they should be discounted.

[Myles Na G.]

I did find this funny.

CF: Yeah, I've always felt my family is British; I'm British, even though I have never lived there.

There are plenty of irish who've never set foot on the island. Are they discounted?

If they haven't bothered their arse paying a visit then yes, they should be discounted.

That's the republic's football team bollixed, then. 

[Rossfan]

I did find this funny.

CF: Yeah, I've always felt my family is British; I'm British, even though I have never lived there.

There are plenty of irish who've never set foot on the island. Are they discounted?

If they haven't bothered their arse paying a visit then yes, they should be discounted.

That's the republic's football Soccer team bollixed, then. 

Fixed that for you 

[Maguire01]

Some will say that indeed - and many of them will believe it. Others will say it rather than admit the futility of what happened here. Others again will say that it was a waste of time and failed to achieve the primary objective.

And as I have said before, it's a pretty big assumption to say that without the "war" nationalists would still be the second class citizens they were in the 1960s. It assumes that the world otherwise stands still. The world became a very different place in those 30 years - attitudes to racism, homosexuality, unmarried mothers, the position of the Church etc. - yet there's this assumption that without violence, Catholics would have remained second class citizens, that NI could have continued to exist as it did. It also totally ignores changing demographics, the demise of the traditional employment for the Protestant population, the education of the Catholic population...

So you are suggesting that it would have been better for the nationalist population in the 6 counties during the 60's to just sit back and wait for times to change. Don't bother fighting back or protesting peacefully with a civil rights movement. You'll be handed equality when the time is right by the british government and the unionist politicians, not to mention opportunity for jobs and education.

awesome insight Maguire. please tell us more pearls of wisdom.

Are you just making things up? Nowhere did i suggest just sitting back and waiting for change. I absolutely support peaceful protest and a civil rights movement, or civil disobedience.

Yep - because pleading with the british government and the unionists for concessions works. it was only a matter of time really in the 60's and early 70's.

and not to worry, because if they say no the Irish government and the population of the free state will ensure that the nationalists in the 6 counties get equality. There's no way they won't intervene.

great job.

So first you criticise me for not supporting peaceful protest and a civil rights movement. Then when I point out that you're wrong, you suggest that it wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Make your mind up.

The fact is there was 25 odd years of violence. Hardly an advertisement for the effectiveness of that approach.

You never mentioned the civil rights movement in your first post. I just wanted to mention it, not that I believed it would work.
Getting beaten off the streets or mown down like dogs by the army isn't really an effective way of gaining equality.

Might not have been 25 years of violence if the people of the 26 counties really made their voices heard.

How do you know how effective a civil rights movement, peaceful protest or civil disobedience might have been over 25 years? We'd probably have a lot less than 3,000 plus deaths and many multiples of that injured.

And even if you support the approach of shooting and bombing people, and if you somehow believe that it was all for equality and not nationalism, and if you then think that it achieved its objectives, you then have to ask yourself, was the outcome worth the death of 3,000 plus people? Was it a price worth paying?

I could now ask you with your own ' how do you know what would have happened.....'

I can't be certain (although i've mentioned a few examples of progress that were happening), but it's unlikely that 3,000 plus people would have died.

The peaceful protests and civil rights weren't working

In fact it made it worse for the nationalist /Irish/GAA families in the north - you prob won't read that in your books

Fact - civil rights and somewhat passive resistence for decades ( hundreds) of years wasn't having any effect
Fact- a few decades of fighting back did agitate a move for equality
- can't really dispute what happened with what ifs!!

It's back to that approach that because X happened around a similar timeframe to Y, then X happened because of Y. It totally ignores that at the same time A, B, C, D,E and F were also happening.

And it's a lie to say the civil rights movement wasn't having any impact. The 'one man, one vote' was agreed in 1969, the Housing Executive was established in 1971. Some progress was being made and it was clear the status quo couldn't continue.

Jim prior also apparanly believes that the militant action by republicans helped bring about the equality sought

One opinion. I could list numerous individuals with the opposite opinion.
EDIT: I just watched the programme - he said no such thing. He said "violence worked" - he made no reference to it bringing about equality.

[Maguire01]

How do you know how effective a civil rights movement, peaceful protest or civil disobedience might have been over 25 years? We'd probably have a lot less than 3,000 plus deaths and many multiples of that injured.

And even if you support the approach of shooting and bombing people, and if you somehow believe that it was all for equality and not nationalism, and if you then think that it achieved its objectives, you then have to ask yourself, was the outcome worth the death of 3,000 plus people? Was it a price worth paying?

No lives are worth losing. that's a stupid question.

It's not a stupid question. A difficult one maybe, for someone who supported that approach. If no lives are worth losing, then you can't justify a violent approach.

The civil rights movement didn't get off to a great start now did it? so you think that people would have gotten back on the streets to peacefully protest week in, week out for their rights if they thought they would lose their lives doing so?

The irish government weren't doing much of a job in helping them. They might give the PM a cross look next time they saw them but that was about it.

if you don't fight your corner you won't get anything. How often do people in a position of ultimate power yield something if there is no reason to? Could you see the unionists being reasonable? Never never never.

Get off your unicorn Rainbow Brite and come into the real world.

As i've responded to another post, the 'one man, one vote' was agreed in 1969, the Housing Executive was established in 1971. Some progress was being made and it was clear the status quo couldn't continue.

I totally agree about "fighting your corner". I don't agree that you do that with bombs and bullets.

[Maguire01]

John Hume virtually ignored.

Taylor needs to be reminded about who was the main nationalist force behind the IRA ceasefire

Seamus Mallon was representing the SDLP - maybe he should've emphasised Hume's contribution a bit more. John, unfortunately, isn't able to speak up for himself these days.

Hume and Mallon lead the nationalist charge long before sf came about

Two fantastic men and politicians

But by your logic, they didn't have a clue what they were talking about, given that they totally opposed violence.

You said to me:

if you had actually personal and family experience and knowledge of what had historically gone on for decades prior to gfa - you might and prob see things a whole lot differently.

Well surely these two men had very real personal and family experience? How can they be fantastic men and politicians if they got it so wrong?